Techno, I am curious why you think the models don't take into account natural cooling and warming cycles. The articles in science magazines explaining the various models show them as nothing else at all but analyses of natural warming and cooling cycles and how we may alter them by adding CO2. Perhaps you haven't seen them mentioned for same reason we don't ask if there is water in the ocean.

Last edited by keycocker on Tue Aug 20, 2013 8:53 pm; edited 1 time in total

The science behind how forests capture, store and release carbon is very complicated and is being studied. These type of studies take years to develop ,collect data, analyze the data, publish and review.

I was a global warming skeptic for years. I was convinced that much of the news was hyped, thus my disdain for Al Gore I have expressed a number of times here. I still am convinced that the doomsday predictions are exaggerated.

But, even looking at conservative estimates of global warming effects leaves me fearful we will be caught with our pants down. We are not preparing for climate change effects by taking even moderate planning steps in basic infrastructure planning in much of the country. This was the point I was trying (poorly) to make when I asked if I should be considering climate change effects in designing a bridge.

It makes sense to me to develop a strategy for dealing with the potential effects of climate change. It makes sense to me to reduce or carbon footprint using realistic and feasible methods where we can. It makes sense to phase this in slowly and carefully, but deliberately.

This will not happen without political will and some consensus. This should not be a political issue.

grasping at straws also clutching at straws
1. trying to find some way to succeed when nothing you choose is likely to work Jerry, grasping at straws, searched the backup tapes from last week, looking for the missing files.

2. trying to find reasons to feel hopeful about a bad situation She thinks he might still be interested because he calls her now and then but I think she's clutching at straws.

Perhaps whistling past the graveyard would be more appropriate? The source, which I cited, said that wildfires don't compare. It is always a good idea to think before you post.

This is just nonsense:

Quote:

Since there is relevant, proven data about the earth's warming and cooling cycles, even in the relatively near past, liberals just seem to ignore those facts

.

If we start 20,000 years ago--about--the last ice age ended. Things warmed pretty rapidly for a while. In San Francisco, sea level advanced from the Farallones to the Golden Gate. Then things slowed down, but sea level continued to rise, and probably the temperature. None of that goes ignored. Look at the graphs I cited--they show multiple heating and cooling cycles--in an unrelenting upward trend. I could say at this point that "conservatives just seem to ignore those facts." Indeed, they often brag about not bothering to check.

You once asked if heavily taxing our fuel as a means of reducing consumption pattern, was working. (Our petrol currently the equivalent of 9.94 dollars per gallon - and that's not a misprint!)

The only discernable effect (apart from anger) is the production of more fuel efficient cars, but this is clearly offset by the fact that a majority of motorists are using their cars even more. (Buy a car - you use it.)

The only two things which would drastically change habits would be; 1) compulsoty rationing of fuel. (Suicide note for any political party suggesting such.) 2) an astronomical increase in fuel tax. (Unacceptable in that only the wealthy would then be able to drive.)

The strange thing I sense is that most people are concerned about the future (our roads are approaching chaotic gridlock, with ever increasing population - immigration- and density of traffic) but simply have no obvious answer. A kind of fatalistic, live while we can attitude, but has the human race ever been any different?

You're overlooking one important source of carbon that accounts for close to 40% of the carbon in our atmosphere. That is the smoke that billows from Mac's ears as he stews all day long and then writes his wordy posts on here. In many ways this has the same effect as cow farts on global warming. It's going to happen no matter what and well.......you can fill in the rest.
Captured on video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ThwTn2aA1LM
GT,
Never mind cars, you better stop using electricity while you're at it too. 38% of carbon dioxide emmisions comes from the production of electricity via fossil fuel combustion.

This was the point I was trying (poorly) to make when I asked if I should be considering climate change effects in designing a bridge.

It makes sense to phase this in slowly and carefully, but deliberately.

This will not happen without political will and some consensus. This should not be a political issue.

About your concern, you're right on all three accounts. But until the doomsdayers and global wealth redistribution camps throw in the towel, it should, must, and will remain political.

Then the more practical decision enters the fray: which climate swing should you plan/design for ... hotter, colder, or both? Only the latter makes practical sense, as both have been recently (relative to your bridge's 75 year life span) predicted by the climate alarmists. Your challenge is not to convince us here, but to convince your customer that if his 75-year longevity is a high priority, he must be prepared to fund some degree of local climate (or at least weather) change towards both extremes beyond the usual 100-year statistics. It's up to you to persuade the customer your additional foresight is worth the additional funds. That may be easy if your competitors insist on building a bridge based on the local weather in the third week of August, 2013, or even if they add 100-year statistics to their expectations; look how many 100-year events have made the news lately.

I, of course, don't know whether you're not reading my posts or simply not willing to respond due to the number of times I've succeeded in defeating your arguments, but either way it's your foot and your bridge contract, not anyone else's, in the line of fire. The big boys and girls weigh ideas as standalone entities, regardless of whether they like the source.

The US uses some three times the transportation fuel per capita of Europe. Obviously, there are many reasons for this. Our roads are less crowded, population density is less etc. But, we also drive big cars and trucks because cost does not matter as much.

Would an increase in fuel taxes reduce consumption significantly? Maybe, or it could just cause people to spend less money on other things. IMO, a moderate phase in of gas taxes to offset some of the costs associated with the product is the proper approach. The funds would be used for public transportation and global warming effect mitigation projects.

We need to include the total costs into energy products.

We (me included) have a bad attitude about energy use in our cars. It is very difficult to not use the auto sitting in the driveway. Most of us do not think of the cost when driving to the trailhead, store or work. We just do it.

Much as I hate it personally, this is why our CAFE (required auto fuel efficiency mandates), might be the most effective way to reduce consumption of gasoline. This too, can be ineffective...at one point I had a large truck and a Honda Civic. When my wife had the Honda out of town, I biked everywhere. When I had the Honda available, I drove all over the place...sometimes just for fun.

I agree about human nature. It may be that we will not do anything about energy use and production (or over population) until we are faced with the grim consequences.

But, even looking at conservative estimates of global warming effects leaves me fearful we will be caught with our pants down. We are not preparing for climate change effects by taking even moderate planning steps in basic infrastructure planning in much of the country. This was the point I was trying (poorly) to make when I asked if I should be considering climate change effects in designing a bridge.

It makes sense to me to develop a strategy for dealing with the potential effects of climate change. It makes sense to me to reduce or carbon footprint using realistic and feasible methods where we can. It makes sense to phase this in slowly and carefully, but deliberately.

This makes sense to me as well, assuming there is no doubt about global warming and its continuation. My issue is that there is still debate and no overwhelming consensus on the CONTINUED warming. What if the warming has plateaued, or if there is a mini ice age on the horizon? My point is, let's be SURE before we try to fix an possibly unfixable problem.

Mac said:

Quote:

It is always a good idea to think before you post

The usual demeaning comment. By the way, I did think, it's just that you disagree. While there is natural global warming and cooling cycles including forest fires that impact climate change, I don't recall ever hearing or seeing it in the media. Why is that? It certainly may be considered in some global warming studies, but how many?

As stated in your forest fire post, the fires do release CO2, plus there is the loss of CO2 consuming trees at the same time, both adding to an increase in global CO2. Eventually, new growth may increase the uptake of CO2, but how long does that take? Insignificant? Who knows, maybe or maybe not.

The US uses some three times the transportation fuel per capita of Europe. Obviously, there are many reasons for this.

Including the sheer distances we drive. i used to drive 17,000 miles per year just chasing wind. All my "local" launches in New Mexico were ~185 miles away, and we thought nothing of leaving work at lunch to sail at one of them for the afternoon. For various reasons I drove to the Gorge 6 times one summer ... from Albuquerque, 1300 miles away not even counting side trips to Wyoming, San Francisco, and southern CA. A quick trip to visit a national park was a one-day drive each way -- no big deal -- at just 900 miles. A business trip from New Mexico to Florida? Shoot, man ... DRIVE! Might (did!) catch some wind along the way, and it's only 1,800 miles each way.

Driving was, and sometimes still is, a fun and flexible adventure in itself, while flying is a rigid, boring PITA linking two spots we hope are worth the trip. Driving is a great meal, while flying is a glucose injection with a big, square needle under a fingernail.

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot vote in polls in this forumYou cannot attach files in this forumYou cannot download files in this forum